An Empire of Deceit?

Actor Jussie Smollett has been accused of staging
the attack that catapulted him into the media spotlight. Most disturbingly,
it has been claimed that the staged attack was a ploy to get a pay raise. It is, of course, important to note that
Smollett has not been found guilty and must be considered innocent until proven
guilty. The situation does, however, raise important moral concerns about
staging a hate crime and this matter will be discussed in general terms,
without making any judgment about Smollett’s guilt or innocence.

On the face of it, the ethics of staging a hate crime
(or any crime) are quite straightforward: it is morally wrong to do this. As
such, what really remains is an examination of why it is wrong and the extent
of the wrongness.

The first, and most obvious, problem is that reporting
a staged hate crime wastes police resources that could be used to address crimes
that have actually occurred—including real hate crimes. From a utilitarian standpoint,
this creates a degree of harm equal to the resources diverted from doing real
police work.

There is, of course, also the immorality of the
deceit itself—the self-inflicted moral harm of becoming a deceiver and
maintaining the deceit. There is also the harm inflicted on the world itself. As
Merlin said, “when a man lies, he murders some part of the world.” And also
some part of himself. As such, even if such a staged crime does not have a
significant impact in terms of diverting police resources, it still causes moral
harm.

A very serious consequence of staging a hate crime
is something that Jussie Smollett himself noted: when people learn that a hate
crime has been staged, they are more likely to have doubts when real victims
come forward to report crimes. And, of course, each case of deceit about such a
crime increases the doubt—thus making it ever more reasonable to consider that a
person reporting a hate crime is lying. As such, this sort of deceit does considerable
harm to all present and future victims of hate crimes.

Another consequence is that it provides ammunition
to those motivated to deny that hate crimes occur and to reject the claims of
victims. Even though it is not yet known that Smollett is guilty or innocent, he
has already become part of the “fake victim” memes that are circulating via
social media. While some people will
always deny claims made by (alleged) victims in groups they dislike, a proven
staged hate crime would give their claims more impact. After all, they can say “I
bet that this person is lying, just like that guy who faked the attack on himself.”

What is even worse is that people who commit
actual hate crimes can make use of the existence of faked crimes in their defense.
They can make the argument that the alleged victim is lying about the crime—a tactic
that has long been used in cases of sexual assault.

It is also worth noting that there can also be
harm done to those cast as the villains in the staged crime. For example, if Smollett
did stage the attack and cast his attackers as Trump supporters, then some harm
has been done to them. While some might think that all Trump supporters are racist
homophobes who would attack a gay black actor, this is obviously an unfair
stereotype. Naturally, Trump supporters cannot claim to be the biggest victim
if Smollett turns out to have staged the attack, but such a faked attack would
do them some harm. As such, faking a hate crime is morally wicked and has broad
consequences.

The reasoning behind such a ploy might be that a celebrity victim would gain more fame, which can be used as a currency to buy more salary. This is probably analogous to how speaker fees would work. For example, any of us could give a very good speech in our area of expertise, but we would just earn our usual hourly pay (at best). But, if one of us was a celebrity, that person could make as much on a single appearance as a person would make as a normal worker in a year. Or more.

When 16-year-old Nick Sandmann* delivered The Smirk Seen ‘Round the World last month, journalists and other liberals pounced and seized on it like the huge national news story it wasn’t. The brief video of the MAGA-hatted lad smiling at activist/fabulist Nathan Phillips went viral, and within 24 hours we knew Sandmann’s name, where he’s from, and where he goes to school. In fact, his school had to be shut down because of all the death threats. When further video evidence appeared, proving that Sandmann didn’t do anything wrong and in fact tried to defuse tensions, most of the people who threatened him and tried to get him expelled just pretended they were still right all along. It was #FakeButAccurate. That kid had to be the bad guy if he was wearing the bad hat, right? The outrage mob made a few more pathetic attempts to slander Covington Catholic, and when that didn’t work, they stopped screaming about that hoax and immediately started screaming about the Jussie Smollett hoax. It was a busy month for getting angry at things that didn’t actually happen.

Fast-forward to last week on the campus of UC Berkeley, and a hate crime that actually did happen. A young fellow named Hayden Williams was manning a table for Turning Point USA when he was threatened and punched.

(Video and full face photo of attacker in original article here)

That was a week ago. You’d think that the attacker would’ve been arrested by now, or at least identified. Right?

Northam claimed it was him. Until he remembered that he was left handed. Which is something he forgot every time he was pictured signing a document. Because truth dies in darkness…or some such lefty bs. Does it really matter who it was? They simply make up whatever bs that fits their narrative. And as soon as the bs no longer fits, they cast that aside for some other bs. It doesn’t matter so long as the media and even academia are willing to play along with the latest lie. Why bother to even humor them with so much as an ounce of credibility? It’s what the meaning of the word is is. It’s bj’s aren’t really sex and even if they are it’s not the person having the orgasm that’s having the sex but the one performing. Every time I give blood I cringe at how that question gets worded. Once a society gives a bs story like that one ounce of credibility, it is f’d. It’s been 20-25 years since then. Admit that you will accept anything as a serious answer from these clowns. The pretending is quite tiresome.

Your essay covers the effects of hate crime hoaxes. It does not deal with the intent.

I find some interest in the intentions (plural) motivating these hoaxes.

I browsed a list of hate crime hoaxes. Some fake victims alleged hate crimes to make their story more believable – arson for insurance with a cover of hate crime, for example – but many more wanted to draw attention to their cause.

In the Smollett case, the prosecution allege that greed was the motivation for the creation of a false narrative. It’s a simple, understandable motive, a motive common across many categories of crime. For purposes of establishing guilt, I’m sure they have a competent prosecutor who made that decision conscientiously. Some commenters have noted that Smollett worked with Kamala Harris, campaigning for her, that Kamala Harris sponsored a bill to introduce a new hate crime for conspiracy to lynch right in the Smollett timeline, that Smollett must have been aware of this, and that the noose allegedly put around his neck in the attack would have given Harris’ bill publicity and a boost. Was this somehow related? We will probably never know.

Whan Oprah told the story of a shop assistant who refused to show her a bag because it was too expensive, the story went viral and was splashed across newspapers wound the world. It’s a great story, chuckleworthy while establishing the narrative that even the richest and most famous black people still suffer discrimination. It should be noted that she was promoting her film at the time, whose theme was racial discrimination. She did not give any specifics that would allow reporters to verify the story, but inevitably the shop was identified, and the assistant in question denied that the incident had ever happened. When confronted with this, Oprah made no direct rebuttal but simply said she didn’t think it would blow up so much. Of course, this followup to the story was covered hardly at all. There was no actual crime here, of course, but was it a hoax?

As hate hoaxes go, I prefer the ones whose object is simple greed, and not spreading falsehood and division in readers’ minds.

As hate hoaxes go, I prefer the ones whose object is simple greed, and not spreading falsehood and division in readers’ minds.

While I see your point, do you really think it makes much of a difference outside of the morals of the individual? A hate hoax damages the trust and fabric of society to virtually the same degree regardless of its motivation.

And speaking of hoaxes, I understand today is the anniversary of a serious real crime in which the victim’s actions, in the fundamental right of self defense and self preservation, had been hoaxed into the category of a hate crime. Technically not a hoax crime except for the hate part. But no one cares about the true victim of that crime. The victim as defined by the media however is still regarded as the perp and the perp as the victim, even by Mike apparently. A pox on everyone who is actively or silently complicit in the perpetuation of that viscious lie. Every damn one of them. Evil bastards to the core.

Two things: First, Mike was examining the ethics of such hoaxes. It seems only fair to give deontologists a look-in.

Second, I agree that, in principle, the (mix of) motives of the hoaxer do not necessarily affect the consequences. However, in practice, they might.

The hoax arsonist who daubed some graffiti on the blazing building is not interested in pursuing public outrage; he just wants the insurers to cut his check. The True Believer who wants to rally his troops to hate the enemy, on the other hand, is much more likely to release and drip-feed more bait into news and social media to increase the level of hate and anger.

Yes. Because Mike in all his screeds has been all about being on the level and never ever drifts from the philosophical point, so we need to be fair. Not that I don’t agree to some extent with your point, we’re it being made in a different context.

Agree somewhat on the likelihood of drip feed repeat offense on the hate hoax part. But that goes to intent. A quibble.

However to the Martin/Zimmerman contrast, a hoax hate aspect, I ask is it morally wrong to state that the lies around such an event, or the Hands Up Don’t Shoot hoax, may be justified because they supposedly tell a greater “truth”?

I have never respected the idea of a “hate crime”, and I do not support any legislation that defines such. If the crime is a crime, then it should be charged and tried as such. Certainly, the motivation can be taken into account by the jury, in assessing the likelihood of guilt, and by the judge in sentencing, in assessing the severity of the crime and the likelihood of re-offending. But if hitting someone is a crime, then hitting them because of any specific reason should not be a separate crime.

It now occurs to me that a possible counterbalance for the existence of “hate crimes” in law might be a separate law penalising the false representation of any specific event as a hate crime.